March 16, 2010

Here's a closeup of the apple with some iPhoto'd sharpening (no lines redrawn or retouching, just contrast, sharpening, and increasing the "highlights" and "shadows):

For comparison, here's the standard image of Karl Marx:

Now, the Anchoress — first link, above — has become "convinced that it’s simply a matter of the apples’ shading and the lighting." Absurd! It can't be just the lighting and the pattern of the apple peel. A magazine cover is carefully constructed and attention would have to be paid to any accidental imagery. The apple was chosen to be exactly the intended apple and subject to Photoshop tweaking and strategic placement of the lights to attain just the right level of perception and deniability. A good subliminal image must be seen and not seen. It must slide past the average person's conscious defenses and make anyone who insists it is there seem delusional. The Anchoress has retreated.

"Now, the Anchoress — first link, above — has become "convinced that it’s simply a matter of the apples’ shading and the lighting."

Newsweek would never do this to the Obama's. They'd never suggest to people openly what they're trying to achieve quietly.

It's an accident of the lighting (and if anyone noticed it, they probably thought given their proclivities, that nobody would mind the imagery.)

If it was Bush, and Hitler was staring out of the forbidden fruit, then I'd certainly suspect Newsweek.

But to embarrass Michelle Obama in this way (when she, after all, is only in the White House by accident) ... I just don't see the liberal media doing this.

Don't get me wrong. Michelle Obama is evil in her own special way (after all she introduced "patient dumping into alleys" to her Chicago hospital as a way to control health care costs) but she's not in control of our government.

Apples only for the children of disadvantaged minorities. That's on page 1137, paragraph 3 (social justice provision), sub-paragraph 3c (compensation for past discrimination) of wookie's hubby's still unwritten health care bill, which is about to be "deemed" into law.

What is the shock? Someone is either thought this would be good tea-bag provocation/conservative baiting to spur artificial controversy to push magazines or they are just admitting it out in the open now.

We got the print copy in the mail today. The apple on the print copy doesn't look the least bit like a face of any kind. The bright highlight at the top is there, but the two "cheek" highlights in the online photo just aren't in the print copy at all, and the "mustache" doesn't scan as such without the "cheek" highlights. The online photo has been significantly contrast-enhanced compared to the print version, also; the "beard" doesn't show up as a form in the print copy, although the same shaded regions are there.

I don't really see how a standard JPG algorithm would generate those "cheeks" as artifacts; I suspect somebody doctored it.

Reminds me of a joke. Woman goes to a tattoo parlor, requests a tattoo of Elvis on her inner thigh. The guy tattoos her, and she complains it looks nothing like Elvis. The guy disagrees, but offers to do an even better one on the other thigh. Again, she says it looks nothing like Elvis. They argue, and ultimately agree to pick the first guy off the street, bring him in and see if he can identify the likeness; if he doesn't say it's Elvis, she won't have to pay. They bring the guy in. He says, "I don't recognize either guy on the sides, but that's Willie Nelson in the middle!"

I know one thing - spread the word to convince the people of Dubya's "Religion of Peace" that the apple contains an image of the Prophet intended as a joke - and watch the fun.

Within a few days, grovelling members of the 4th Estate will apologize, Newsweek wil say exactly who is imaged on the Apple, fire the photo editor and also apologize for giving Islam, peaceful and freedom-loving as Bush said it was - offense.

Michelle will apologize for her staff even allowing the impression she was making fun of the Prophet, even if they were unaware of it...and emphasize it wasn't the prophet but a 19th Century owner of Newsweek thrown in as a joke.

The riots in several Muslim countries will die down, dead bodies will be buried. And the angry Muslims will demand a billion or so from us on top of the apologies before they resume their peaceful ways. The Israelis will use the riots as a distraction to seize another 2 acres of East Jeusalem - and demand another billion or so from us or they will take another 2 acres of Palestinian land..

Why is it Michelle's "fight" against childhood obesity, instead of her campaign or crusade or something else? Did Barbara Bush and Laura Bush fight illiteracy or promote reading? Michelle has a victim mindset.

Barack talked about children who are hungry at the National Prayer Breakfast. Are they on the same page?

“We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she tells the women. “Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that."

My opinion (as a professional, commercial photographer) is that it's a reflection of the lighting equipment (directly and reflected off the shiny table surface) interacting with natural variations in the surface of the apple. It really does look like a bearded man, but I think it's a real leap to say it's Karl Marx. It's a shape that vaguely resembles a bearded man. I don't think it resembles THAT portrait of Marx much at all.

Aside from the suggested apple hubbub, this is an interesting cover. Michelle, with the prominent desk and apple, looks like a teacher there, giving parents sound advice to "Feed Your Children Well". But usually teachers teach students, not their parents. Additionally, it's the students who bring the apple to the teacher? Plus the wording under that is odd. "My fight against childhood obesity". Was Michelle an obese child? Did her parents not feed her well? She's always talked positively about them in the past.

Hm...Mixed messages abound.

The only well done thing about this cover is the single message "Feed Your Children Well".

Okay, Rasputin people: what's the significance? Is Michelle Obama basically impossible to kill? Does she have some way of magically healing hemophilia (or, perhaps, fatness) in young people? Are we about to have a big revolution as the weak czar dithers with health care?

Magazines like Time and Newsweek that purport to be serious "news" outlets generally don't allow retouching of anything other than color-balance, etc. They are really sensitive about that sort of thing.

The intrigue is ratcheted up a notch when you consider that Evan Thomas is the grandson of Norman Thomas, a man who ran for president on the Socialist Party in 6 different presidential elections in the early20th century.

As a photographer, the key light in the eye does not match the reflection on the apple. Waxed apples are very reflective, so I am sure that the original apple as recorded is no longer in this image. That "reflection" is no doubt a superimposed face.

NewsWeek must be counting on the mass to be complete idiots to not notice this, because with the proliferation of DSLR cameras and Photoshop, the current population is much more aware of photo-manipulation than in the past.